Posts Tagged ‘survivors benefits’

Just a few weeks ago we wrote about some of the uncertainties facing legally married same-sex couples living in states (like Arizona) that refuse to recognize the validity of their marriages. If a legally-married couple moves to Arizona, we wondered, would their ability to receive some of the tax benefits available to married couples change just because their new state did not recognize or approve of their marriage? We suggested that same-sex couples ought to be aware of the problem, but assume that they should be able to enjoy the same benefits (and burdens, for that matter) available to their married heterosexual friends.

Well, the United States government weighed in on the subject this week, and the positions taken by two different federal agencies made it clear that a valid marriage is a valid marriage — at least in the federal government’s eyes. The result? Same-sex couples still need to pay extra attention to their estate planning choices, but their choices will be much more palatable.

On August 29, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service released Revenue Ruling 2013-17. Its bottom line: if you are legally married, even though your current state of domicile does not recognize it, you will be treated as married for all tax purposes. Period. Income tax, estate tax, gift tax — it makes no difference. You are married.

In our earlier newsletter we talked about a couple, married in Massachusetts, who had moved to Arizona. Could they file their federal income taxes as “married, filing jointly”? Could they list one another as beneficiary on their IRA or 401(k) accounts, relying on the ability of a spouse to roll those benefits over into a new IRA? Would they get the benefit of a full step-up in basis for income tax purposes, just like other married couples holding community property? It was not clear a week ago. Today it is clear. The answer in each case is “yes” — though perhaps a qualified “yes” in one or two of those cases.

Why a qualified yes? Mostly because community property titling is a special case. Yes, there are federal income tax benefits for married couples titling their assets as community property — but the availability of that option is governed by state property law. Arizona is one of the handful of states recognizing community property designations at all, and it limits the option to couples it thinks are married. If a same-sex couple, legally married in another state, attempts to title, say, real estate as community property (or community property with right of survivorship), will Arizona recognize that title?

We are not sure, and so suggest that the safe approach is to create a trust (probably a joint, revocable trust), provide that all the assets in the trust are held as community property, and title most assets to that trust. That does mean that same-sex couples will end up paying somewhat more for their estate planning than their married heterosexual friends — but they will get the same result at a relatively modest cost.

The other notable change on the federal level involves long-term care arrangements for Medicare recipients. It is far less expansive than the big IRA announcement, but reflects the same general approach: married same-sex couples are to be accorded the same benefits as married heterosexual couples, at least on the federal level.

An August 29, 2013, announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services affects Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. It is not very far-reaching, but it is nonetheless important. In cases where one spouse is already admitted to a skilled nursing facility (what most of us call a “nursing home”), when the second spouse requires placement he or she must be permitted to choose the same facility. In other words, Medicare Advantage plans must have rules supporting spouses’ ability to stay together. And those policies must apply to same-sex married couples, too — even if their marriages are not recognized in the state where they live.

Why is this modest change important? Because, like the IRS declaration, it indicates that the federal government will be extending protections to validly married same-sex couples regardless of their state of residence.

Legal rights and responsibilities are evolving quickly for same-sex marriage. The first few states permitting same-sex marriages debated whether to even permit out-0f-state couples to marry. In the next wave of legal developments, it seemed clear that couples living in Arizona probably would not benefit from traveling to, say, Canada or Iowa to get married, only to return to Arizona and have their marriages all but invalidated. This week’s announcements make it clear that a committed same-sex couple should seriously consider whether they want to get married in a friendlier jurisdiction, even if they intend to return to Arizona to live.

The federal pronouncements also make it that much more difficult for states like Arizona to continue to resist the pressure to change. If a legally married same-sex couple, living in Arizona, wants to get divorced, do they have access to the Arizona court system? The current legal thinking in Arizona is that they might be able to seek annulment of their marriage (which, in Arizona’s legal view, never validly existed), but not a divorce (or dissolution).

Consider, for instance, the dilemma facing Phoenix-area resident Anne Armstrong (not her real name) earlier this year. She and her partner Roberta Reynolds had been married in California, but Anne wished to end the marriage. She filed a petition for annulment of the marriage in the Arizona Superior Court in Phoenix. Roberta did not respond, but the Judge Eartha K. Washington nonetheless refused to annul the marriage. Because same-sex marriages are invalid in Arizona, ruled the judge, there was nothing she could do to help Anne end her California marriage.

The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed that decision and sent the case back to the judge for further proceedings to annul the marriage and divide the couple’s property. Atwood v. Riviotta, May 16, 2013. While Anne’s legal problems were addressed, the decision left two huge issues unresolved: (1) what about same-sex married couples who don’t want to end their marriages, and (2) why should the legal process for ending same-sex marriages be different in the first place? Furthermore, the Court of Appeals resolution was by an unpublished decision, meaning it could not even be cited as precedent for other, similar cases as they arise.

What about resolution of child custody issues, or property divisions? What about bigamy laws, or other societal norms affecting married couples? If a couple is permitted to file income tax returns as married under federal law, why should it be different for state income tax returns? The pressure on Arizona (and other resistant states) is intense: it is time for our legal system to deal with changes sweeping across the country, and the federal government’s pronouncements this week will add to that pressure.

MAY 28, 2012 VOLUME 19 NUMBER 21
The United States Supreme Court doesn’t very often weigh in on Social Security rules, so when it does those of us in the elder and disability law community pay attention. Last week’s decision by the Court, interpreting Social Security regulations as applied to posthumously conceived children, addressed interesting questions of law, science and public policy.

Here are the bare facts: Robert and Karen Capato lived in Florida. Robert was being treated for esophageal cancer, and before chemotherapy and radiation treatment began the couple preserved a sample of Robert’s sperm. That way, Karen would be able to conceive another child (the couple had one child together already) by Robert even if his treatment left him infertile — or even if he died.

Robert Capato did die of cancer. Nine months after his death Karen became pregnant using his banked sperm. Eighteen months after Robert’s death she delivered twins.

Karen applied for Social Security survivors benefits for the twins. Citing Florida law on inheritance rights, the Social Security Administration denied the benefits (presumably the couple’s child conceived and born before Robert’s death qualified for benefits). The federal District Court agreed with Social Security, but the federal Court of Appeals reversed that decision and ruled in favor of Karen and the twins. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Social Security, reversed the Court of Appeals and sent the entire case back for a final determination. Astrue v. Capato, May 21, 2012.

But what’s most interesting about the Supreme Court’s decision may be what it doesn’t decide. It does not rule that no child conceived and born after the death of the child’s father can ever receive Social Security benefits on that father’s work record. It does not bar careful planners from preserving future benefits for children born as a result of in vitro fertilization. Instead, it holds that the basic test is whether state law — usually the state law where the father dies — controls whether the posthumously conceived child is entitled to Social Security survivors benefits.

The Court unanimously ruled that Social Security is only available to survivors who are determined to be heirs of the deceased worker. In Florida, said the Justices, that would not include children conceived after the death of their father. Florida’s probate code expressly excludes after-conceived children, and Robert Capato’s will did not make reference to children who might be conceived after his death.

But does Florida law apply in this case? Probably — but the Justices left open the possibility that the trial judge could find otherwise after a new hearing. Interestingly, Karen Capato moved to New Jersey while pregnant with the twins, and she argued (unsuccessfully, so far) that New Jersey law should apply to the determination of paternity.

Can we infer the answers to some of the obvious questions you might ask? Perhaps — but not conclusively, of course.

If Florida changed its law to make posthumously conceived children entitled to intestate inheritance, would that change the result for the Capato twins? Probably not — but it should change the result for future Florida residents in similar circumstances.

If Robert Capato’s will had specifically mentioned the children he might have in the future, would that have changed the outcome? Hard to say, but tantalizingly interesting. Apparently, Robert and Karen specifically mentioned their intention to preserve sperm for future in vitro fertilization to the lawyer who prepared Robert’s will. Should he of she have included the unknown future children as beneficiary’s of Robert’s estate? Perhaps that would have changed the result.

What if Robert Capato had lived — and died — in Arizona? It’s not clear. Arizona’s probate code does not expressly define posthumously conceived children as either included or not included in the list of intestate heirs. No Arizona appellate case has decided the question, either (though there is at least one reported Arizona case involving the status of sperm intended to be preserved for possible future in vitro fertilization).

What about the laws of intestate succession in other states? Well, we’re not qualified or inclined to render legal opinions about other state laws. But we will note that the Supreme Court specifically pointed to the intestacy laws of several states as dealing with posthumously conceived children. Among the states with some treatment of the question (in addition to Florida) the Court included California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina and South Dakota. There is no mention of New Jersey law — the law Karen Capato would like to apply to the twins’ claim.

Want to read the entire opinion — or even listen to the oral argument before the Supreme Court? Look to the excellent Oyez multimedia website maintained by the IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.